![]() But, after just adding yet another external hard drive to stash all my files, I thought, “It couldn’t hurt to try it out, right?” I’ve always scrolled past the ads for JPEGmini, thinking there’s no way to get a smaller file without some sort of impact on quality. I’m still delivering weddings on USB drives because uploading a few hundred full-resolution JPEGs would literally tie up my internet for a week, while I can snail mail a USB drive and actually have it arrive in a few days. That’s especially true as a photographer living in a rural area with poor internet speed. In other words, you aren't going to sell any ice to these Eskimos.Įdit: accidentally posted comment before I was finished blathering.Storage is a recurring issue for photographers. Nobody is ever going to believe that any system as you've described works for every case, every time (simply impossible). IMO, you'd receive a "warmer" welcome from the more technically-minded folks here if you'd dispense with the marketing hype (definitely stop making impossible claims), and show some real evidence of just how much "better" your output is over some reasonable defaults, including cases where your system fails to meet your stated goals (even a random quality assessment will get it right sometimes). While it seems a bit of a stretch to call it "technology" to this audience but, that is what the word means. You've enhanced the workflow for casual users, the uninformed, and those who prefer to spend their time on something else. Given the many high-quality image-processing libraries, and well-documented techniques available, and the subjective nature of assessing "quality" with respect to how an image "looks", I doubt there is anything original there. The only thing I can see that is possibly non-trivial is your method for assessing quality of the output. You may have added feedback to the loop where many would have had none, but feedback is not a new or novel concept. Irfanview, I believe has batch image processing, as do many other popular photo/image editors. iMacros for browser based repetitive tasks, which could then be used with an online image editor. Then there are visual macro thingamajigs. Matlab is also particularly well suited for this. >But there is no other technology that can do this automatically (and adaptively) for millions of photos.Įxcluding of course, the for loop or the while loop particularly when used in a shell/python/perl/etc script. My guess is that if you just chose around a 75% quality setting and compressed all of your JPEGs that way, you'd do just as well as JPEGmini. And this is on an image that was presumably handpicked as a shining example of how well the product works. So did JPEGmini's visual model detect this and cut the bitrate down accordingly? No, it decided that the image should be saved at the equivalent of 83%, making the file more than twice as large as necessary. The train station image, for example, is so grainy that you can compress it to damn near 600KB (50% in GIMP) before the artifacts are really noticeable (and well beyond that if you scale it down to 25% afterward). Then we'd honestly know whether the program is worth using. On the left side: five JPEGs saved with a constant quality setting, chosen so that the total file size is X, also shown at 100% resolution. On the right side: five JPEGs saved with JPEGmini, having a total file size of X, shown at 100% resolution. To be useful, here's the kind of demo we'd need to see. What we need is a comparison of choosing a single quality level, and using JPEGmini. It doesn't even make the right kind of comparison. Now sure, it may still do a better job than just choosing a constant quality setting and applying it across the board. Look at the dog image, which on their demo appears to be identical to the original. ![]() Showing a comparison at 25% scale gives the impression that the tool is better at choosing "nearly lossless" setting than it really is. However I still maintain that the presentation is dishonest. I see now that this is what they purport to do.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |